ALESCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZSC 66
Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the applicants' funding structure constituted tax avoidance and whether the Commissioner properly exercised statutory powers in issuing reassessments and shortfall penalties in light of the principles in Ben Nevis.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZSC 66
- Parties
- Applicant: ALESCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Applicant: PARBURY BUILDING PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED; Applicant: THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Applicant: ALESCO NZ TRUSTEE LIMITED; Applicant: CONCRETE PLUS LIMITED; Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 July 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal to Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Tax Avoidance, Shortfall Penalties, Reassessment, Ben Nevis Principles
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ALESCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Applicant
PARBURY BUILDING PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED
Applicant
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Applicant
ALESCO NZ TRUSTEE LIMITED
Applicant
CONCRETE PLUS LIMITED
Applicant
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal to Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the funding structure used by the applicants constituted a tax avoidance arrangement
- 2 Whether the Commissioner's application of shortfall penalties was a proper exercise of statutory powers
- 3 Whether the Commissioner's reassessments were a proper exercise of statutory powers
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the applicants' funding structure constituted tax avoidance and whether the Commissioner properly exercised statutory powers in issuing reassessments and shortfall penalties in light of the principles in Ben Nevis.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court
- Approved grounds of appeal limited to: (i) whether the funding structure was a tax avoidance arrangement; (ii) whether shortfall penalties were properly applied; (iii) whether reassessments were proper
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ALESCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZSC 66 [9 July 2013]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 33/2013[2013] NZSC 66BETWEEN ALESCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDFirst ApplicantPARBURY BUILDING PRODUCTS(NZ) LIMITEDSecond ApplicantTHERMO FISHER SCIENTIFICNEW ZEALAND LIMITEDThird ApplicantALESCO NZ TRUSTEE LIMITEDFourth ApplicantCONCRETE PLUS LIMITEDFifth ApplicantAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCourt: McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJCounsel: L McKay, R G Simpson and M McKay for ApplicantsB W F Brown QC and R L Roff for RespondentJudgment: 9 July 2013JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Leave to appeal is granted.B The approved grounds of appeal are whether, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue1 and other cases on tax avoidance:1 Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2008] NZSC 115, [2009] 2 NZLR 289.(i) the structure used by the applicants for funding the transactions is a tax avoidance arrangement;(ii) the Commissioner's application of shortfall penalties was aproper exercise of the relevant statutory powers;(iii) the Commissioner's reassessments were a proper exercise ofthe relevant statutory powers.____________________________________________________________________Solicitors:Bell Gully, Auckland for ApplicantsCrown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent